Congrats, nathris . Just remember that the vanilla kernel is optimized for size and not necessarily speed (-Os versus -O2). I can get 2.6.37 vanilla down to 1.2MB if optimized for size. Currently running 2.6.37 at 3.7MB...Edited by adamlau - 1/7/11 at 11:46pm

If the difference isn't noticeable on a platter system an SSD won't be noticeable either. Stripping a kernel used to be really popular, back when they weren't so modular. The thing is, now that we can unload that code there's no reason to go through the work. I see it as wasted time these days, but to each their own. =P

Oh no, I didn't mean that putting it on my SSD would reveal a greater variation in boot time based on how I configured the kernel, just that simply putting Arch on my SSD would show a difference in boot time. Instant gratification FTW

Well if you take Arch for example, unless you compile a kernel manually I'm fairly sure it will overwrite the existing kernel each time it is updated. Perhaps there is more to it than that but that's what appears to happen. I'm pretty sure that Arch only ever has one vmlinuz at a time by default. I haven't been running Arch for a while so I'd have to double-check to be certain though.

Greetz
Well I suppose I have a bad reputation for not trusting automatics software, figuring if you want it done right you do it yourself, and this will likely add to it. Modules can be loaded on an on-demand basis so I don't trust auto-config based on what's running. I compile manually and old skool

Code:

make mrproper&&make menuconfig&&make bzImage&&make modules&&make modules_install
cat arch/x86/boot/bzImage > /boot/vmlinuz-new
cp System.Map /boot/System.map-new
cp .config /boot/config-new
Note: The appended names (ie: "new") depend on whether I am compiling a new config for an existing kernel version or a new version.
Then I update bootloader to recognize/activate kernel and add it to the boot menu

Congrats, nathris . Just remember that the vanilla kernel is optimized for size and not necessarily speed (-Os versus -O2). I can get 2.6.37 vanilla down to 1.2MB if optimized for size. Currently running 2.6.37 at 3.7MB...

Let's keep our nomenclature consistent. A Vanilla kernel has specifically or exclusionary nothing to do with size or optimizations. It simply means that no "flavors" have been added and it is configured from an unchanged kernel.org source tarball.

The *Buntu kernels are heavily patched and otherwise altered. There are whole sections titled "Ubuntu" that add distro and hardware specific support at kernel and module level. Studio Ubuntu's kernel is also not vanilla but is configured for performance and speed for the most part. They don't tweak it to the max for performance, nor can any distro do that for public release, because it is hardware dependent. You must first have performance hardware to be stable with aggressive settings, much like overclocking.

Everything is a tradeoff. Install kernels are commonly big to be compatible with everything. A smaller kernel is faster but does less - the whole "somethin' for nuthin'" conundrum. . Each person can choose a balance. A 1.2MB on a modern desktop system surely lacks considerable function. If that is a reasonable tradeoff for you, great. Obviously it wasn't since you now use one more than three times that size.

Greetz
Well I suppose I have a bad reputation for not trusting automatics software, figuring if you want it done right you do it yourself, and this will likely add to it.

I was making a comparison between upgrading the distribution's mainline kernel and compiling your own. Whether that is the old skool method or using scripts wasn't a distinction I was trying to make The Arch build scripts allow you to specify the kernel's name so that it won't overwrite the original. By the looks of it they simply modify .config as you would anyway. When I was running Ubuntu I would do this myself with gconfig, perhaps because I wasn't sure how to do it otherwise.

Let's keep our nomenclature consistent. A Vanilla kernel has specifically or exclusionary nothing to do with size or optimizations. It simply means that no "flavors" have been added and it is configured from an unchanged kernel.org source tarball.

make menuconfig from the unchanged kernel.org source tarball defaults to -Os.

make menuconfig from the unchanged kernel.org source tarball defaults to -Os.

Of course I know that but that is just the default setting. I know and apparently you do too, that a vanilla kernel comes untainted from kernel.org. There are many who will read this thread who are so tied into repositories, that will assume that the latest kernel update for their distro is "vanilla" if they just leave it alone.

Ubuntu and it's like remind me of a time when there were millions of people who actually believed that AOL was the Internet.

Oh no, I didn't mean that putting it on my SSD would reveal a greater variation in boot time based on how I configured the kernel, just that simply putting Arch on my SSD would show a difference in boot time. Instant gratification FTW

lol I didn't know! hahaha

As for the Vanilla kernel stuff... I think it's nice to run a vanilla kernel, but I also think it's fun to choose your own patches. That's why I like doing it! There is just something about applying the patches myself that makes it worth it.

@nathris: I had been using my old .config since early 2.6 and just got the kernel image down to 1784848K. Thanks for the inspiration!

@mushroomboy: How is 2.6.37 BFS/BFQ working out for you? 2.6.37 BFS has been running fine for the past few days, it's when BFQ has been patched in (CFQ removed) alongside BFS that things turn ever so slightly sluggish...Edited by adamlau - 1/9/11 at 3:05pm